THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of yearsProf Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place
The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took placeProfessor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”
He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.
Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.
The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.
But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”
The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.
But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.
He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.
“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”
But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.
“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.
“We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.”
And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”.
Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of *climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of scepticism among “real scientists” was very small.

I think it's a shame to conflate global warming with man made contributions, or assume them to be the primary driver. But beyond that I'm unsure how bringing in either one of those examples truly addresses what is being stated in the article, because among other things, global temperatures have only been recorded for a limited time. Beyond which, it may be natural for those shelfs to melt. It may be part of a natural cycle that occurs over expansive amounts of time that needs to happen, similar to how regular fires in the west were actually a way of limiting large scale forest fires that did not proliferate the way they do now until we began to suppress the more limited versions.

Beyond all that, the implications for science go beyond the scope of just this article. Some of the emails come across basically portraying people who don't agree with global warming as crooks, as well as show scientists marginalizing periodicals that don't adhere to a certain world view. When everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks. Furthermore, it's sad that scientists would fight alternative views with something other than the scientific process, which has been an accusation leveled at other branches.

Once upon a time, everybody though the sun revolved around the earth. Those who argued a minority position of heliocentrism were marginalized and punished; is it necessary for us to repeat those mistakes?

Whether the Climate Change predictions are real or not, I have faith in the self-correcting properties of the scientific method and the peer-reviewed scientific community. Throughout the history of science, bad science or mistaken theories have always been exposed and the truth nearly always comes out sooner or later.

I will almost always put my "faith" in the concensus of the scientific community.

I think it's a shame to conflate global warming with man made contributions, or assume them to be the primary driver. But beyond that I'm unsure how bringing in either one of those examples truly addresses what is being stated in the article, because among other things, global temperatures have only been recorded for a limited time. Beyond which, it may be natural for those shelfs to melt. It may be part of a natural cycle that occurs over expansive amounts of time that needs to happen, similar to how regular fires in the west were actually a way of limiting large scale forest fires that did not proliferate the way they do now until we began to suppress the more limited versions.

Beyond all that, the implications for science go beyond the scope of just this article. Some of the emails come across basically portraying people who don't agree with global warming as crooks, as well as show scientists marginalizing periodicals that don't adhere to a certain world view. When everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks. Furthermore, it's sad that scientists would fight alternative views with something other than the scientific process, which has been an accusation leveled at other branches.

Once upon a time, everybody though the sun revolved around the earth. Those who argued a minority position of heliocentrism were marginalized and punished; is it necessary for us to repeat those mistakes?

Agreed; anthropegenic causation is a separate issue from climate change. You know that.

Wanna lay a wager on just how few people can separate the two issues?

Those who are pointing to the emails as proof that we can "do nothing" or otherwise ignore what is a real (and growing) problem underscores the problem.

__________________
Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature."Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird

Yes now that is true; I think I lean conservatively in general but there's one thing I know I don't like and it's extremism either way. This is not an "Either human's are contributing or they're not" issue, or a "we can help or we can't" issue; and to postulate the problem with a for-us-or-against-us mentality is absurd.

Not trying to cause an argument. I REALLY do think we as humans need to be better and more responsible for what we do to the Earth, but it is just as irresponsible and angering that the public is being forced into accepting policies based on "inaccurate*" data.

Not trying to cause an argument. I REALLY do think we as humans need to be better and more responsible for what we do to the Earth, but it is just as irresponsible and angering that the public is being forced into accepting policies based on "inaccurate*" data.

*-assuming the emails and data hacked proves to be correct.

Sith

Real quick: You do realize that Texas is not "the globe", right? The ocean temperatures have been rising consistent with data projections; sea levels have been rising at an alarming rate. Worse of all, ecosystems are getting shifted in a manner that could VERY likely lead to food and/or water shortages in the immediate future. Snow in Dallas ain't even close to the issue.

As a case in point, I was in Costa Rica this past June-August with the UNHCR and the "rainy season" down there was the driest. Of all time. As in, instead of raining every day, there were literally dry WEEKS in some parts of the country. Great for tourism, right? Problem is, deforestation and depopulation of the RAINforests was already observable. Government officials (and conservationists) in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama were freaking out about the instant consequences, and the future impacts of further change.

You'd be shocked at how dependent US pharmaceuticals and other corporate sectors are on the survival and fitness of the tropical forests. Biodiversity is more than a cool thing--turns out, it's essential for our own survival.

Sure, climate change might be cyclical. No experts that I have seen or heard have argued against that; the question is one of exacerbation. To what extent has human emission/activity hastened those natural cyclical changes? It is demonstrable (given an undeniably limited and potentially faulty data set) that climate change has been occurring since the Earth began; however, not at the rate that it is occurring now. Period.

While you are absolutely right in that alternative energy production is a good and viable goal, we in the US need more than that to address this issue. We are the richest nation, and we are lagging behind as steward's of this planet. We need a paradigm shift such that we in the US appreciate just how imminent the problem is in the tropics and nearer to the poles.

__________________
Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature."Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird

Last edited by WhiteChocolateJr; 12-05-09 at 12:18 PM.
Reason: Spelling of "Nicaragua"

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - TelegraphCopenhagen Climate Summit: 1,200 Limos, 140 Private Planes And Caviar WedgesCopenhagen Is Preparing For The Climate Change Summit That Will Produce As Much Carbon Dioxide As A Town The Size Of Middlesbrough.
By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".
The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.
And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."
As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.
In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.
And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.
The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

__________________In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
---J0HN ADAMS

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.---Winston Churchill (1903)

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - TelegraphCopenhagen Climate Summit: 1,200 Limos, 140 Private Planes And Caviar WedgesCopenhagen Is Preparing For The Climate Change Summit That Will Produce As Much Carbon Dioxide As A Town The Size Of Middlesbrough.
By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".
The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.
And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."
As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.
In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.
And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.
The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

I saw that article. Pretty sad. There is no doubt a need for security for the top delegates--but 1400 limos? C'mon.

__________________
Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature."Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird

Yes. Michael Moore and Al Gore sent out an ultra-top-secret liberal message instructing all the lefties to argue from that stance.

Or....that's what the world damn-near is in consensus about.

Specifically, the consensus about anthropogenic climate change centers on the these points:

1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability
2. The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
3. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels
4. If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue and the world's climate patterns will change drastically
5. A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

Take a trip to the Pacific island nations that are disappearing under the rising oceans; go down to Central America and convince the leaders of Panama and Costa Rica that the drying of the cloudforests is part of Al Gore's trick to get Democratic support. In fact, while you're down there, pop over to the Antarctic ice shelves that are breaking off and melting, and let them know that they can stop: You're not buying their liberal trickery.

Phantom, at some point, you have to either a) get a hard science degree, or b) accept the research of those who are more knowledgeable in the field than you are. Rush, Glenn Beck, and the non-peer reviewed "papers published" by think tanks wholly owned and operated by O&G companies are not the experts in the field. Some apparently faulty (and possibly fudged) data in the set accepted, I would rather put my chips on the side of the science rather than the side of the profiteering loudmouths who contribute nothing but ridiculous denialism and irrational doubt to the conversation.

__________________
Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature."Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird